QUOTE:
It's not your metabolism that makes you fat, it's eating too much food.
LOL... more people should read this statement and take it to heart!!
Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help
TOPIC: This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick |
|
|---|---|
|
Joined Aug 2010 Posts: 429 |
June 09, 2012 3:25 pm
It's not your metabolism that makes you fat, it's eating too much food. LOL... more people should read this statement and take it to heart!! |
|
Joined May 2011 Posts: 5,326 |
June 09, 2012 3:26 pm
Interesting discussion. I don't have the mental fortitude today to get into a debate...but I'm happy to follow along.
Carry on! 
|
|
Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 13,773 |
June 09, 2012 3:30 pm
QUOTE: Sarauk- Wow, 500+ calories of fats. I'm a fan of getting in your healthy fats but I've never seen that much recommended. Its very very common. 
|
|
Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 711 |
June 09, 2012 3:36 pm
If your deficit is too large, your body will burn lean body mass as well as fat. If you want to decrease your lean body mass, instead of burning primarily fat, go right ahead and eat at a huge deficit--it's your body.
|
|
Joined May 2012 Posts: 1,661 |
June 09, 2012 3:36 pm
Not doubting you (on the very common fat rec), but got any links? I've done WW and read most of the diet books and I've never seen that.
Edited by mcarter99 On June 09, 2012 3:37 pm
|
|
Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 711 |
June 09, 2012 3:38 pm
QUOTE: QUOTE: Sarauk- Wow, 500+ calories of fats. I'm a fan of getting in your healthy fats but I've never seen that much recommended. Its very very common. 500 calories of fat is only 55 gm of fat--that's not excessive at all--perhaps you were thinking she meant 500 gm of fat? |
|
Joined May 2012 Posts: 1,661 |
June 09, 2012 3:47 pm
I guess it's not. 500 calories of fat seems excessive, just intuitively. I've been reading diet books that are so anti-fat they act like the less the better. But I see that even USDA recommends that level. (Not that I think they're particularly trustworthy.)
I read "Know Your Fats" and I'm a fan! : ) |
|
Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 72 |
June 09, 2012 3:51 pm
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/484818-starvation-mode This thread may be of interest here.
|
|
Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 153 |
June 09, 2012 3:53 pm
One can you sustain?
Two are you getting enough nutrients at the calorie set? Three how do you feel emotionally? had to add............these low caloric intakes go one of two ways either you sustain for so long your bady starts missing the nutrients it needs or a binge will undo everything your are working hard to accomplish. Slow and steady wins the race.
Edited by obum88 On June 09, 2012 3:56 pm
|
|
Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 13,773 |
June 09, 2012 3:58 pm
QUOTE: Not doubting you (on the very common fat rec), but got any links? I've done WW and read most of the diet books and I've never seen that. The problem is that you have been reading 'diet books' and not reading articles linked with nutrition and exercise. Here is a link that is really good - the fact that it is on bb.com does not change the recommendation for non-bbs http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981 This one links it to %age, which, if you think about it, is not the right way to look at it - a minimum requirement should not be based on your total calories, but on your bodies requirements which is independent of calories consumed. It does however indicate a 25% - 35% target and references 56 - 77g. http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/Weight_Control/hic_Reducing_Fat_Intake.aspx There are a bunch more out there also.
Edited by Sarauk2sf On June 09, 2012 3:59 pm
|
|
Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 13,773 |
June 09, 2012 4:02 pm
QUOTE: I guess it's not. 500 calories of fat seems excessive, just intuitively. I've been reading diet books that are so anti-fat they act like the less the better. But I see that even USDA recommends that level. (Not that I think they're particularly trustworthy.) I read "Know Your Fats" and I'm a fan! : ) Where does the USDA recommend this? - I have seen them use 30% of a 2000 calorie diet recommendation. ETA: remember, there are 9 calories per g of fat and only 4 for protein and carbs, which is why it may seem high to you.
Edited by Sarauk2sf On June 09, 2012 4:03 pm
|
|
Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 480 |
June 09, 2012 4:03 pm
QUOTE: QUOTE: Not doubting you (on the very common fat rec), but got any links? I've done WW and read most of the diet books and I've never seen that. The problem is that you have been reading 'diet books' and not reading articles linked with nutrition and exercise. Here is a link that is really good - the fact that it is on bb.com does not change the recommendation for non-bbs http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981 This one links it to %age, which, if you think about it, is not the right way to look at it - a minimum requirement should not be based on your total calories, but on your bodies requirements which is independent of calories consumed. It does however indicate a 25% - 35% target and references 56 - 77g. http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/Weight_Control/hic_Reducing_Fat_Intake.aspx There are a bunch more out there also. God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is. 
|
|
Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 13,773 |
June 09, 2012 4:06 pm
QUOTE: God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is. <3 
|
|
Joined Jun 2011 Posts: 2,003 |
June 09, 2012 4:06 pm
What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.
Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back. 
|
|
Joined May 2012 Posts: 1,661 |
June 09, 2012 4:10 pm
Well, I do read articles about nutrition and exercise (incl. ones on bb sites, and even have read NROL- both the men's and women's versions) but yeah, given my main interest is weight maintenance, I get more of the 'diet books' overall. Thanks for the edumacation on macros!
I still think I wouldn't be doing any long term damage to myself if I did choose to temporarily diet on 1000 calories (I only burn about 1800, given my age, size, gender, desk job, etc.). But I would feel too deprived for it to result in long term weight loss, so it's not really anything that I'd do anyway. Where does the USDA recommend it? I was looking at stats like you said, 30% of a 2000 calorie diet. I was agreeing with you. |
|
Joined Jul 2011 Posts: 4,985 |
June 09, 2012 4:12 pm
I'm a big fan of science and evidence but in this case I don't even care about it.
Eating 600-800 calories a day is just a miserable existence. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves? 
|
|
Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 13,773 |
June 09, 2012 4:14 pm
QUOTE: Well, I do read articles about nutrition and exercise (incl. ones on bb sites, and even have read NROL- both the men's and women's versions) but yeah, given my main interest is weight maintenance, I get more of the 'diet books' overall. Thanks for the edumacation on macros! I still think I wouldn't be doing any long term damage to myself if I did choose to temporarily diet on 1000 calories (I only burn about 1800, given my age, size, gender, desk job, etc.). But I would feel too deprived for it to result in long term weight loss, so it's not really anything that I'd do anyway. Where does the USDA recommend it? I was looking at stats like you said, 30% of a 2000 calorie diet. I was agreeing with you. Sorry - misunderstood what you were saying re USDA. 
Totally your choice to do the 1,000 (well. obviously!). As long as people know what the pro's and con's are and approach things with 'eye's wide open' its all good in my book.
|
|
Joined May 2012 Posts: 2,623 |
June 09, 2012 4:15 pm
Depends on the person. I eat between 900 and 1000 calories a day and I am not miserable. What is miserable is being fat.
|
|
Joined Dec 2011 Posts: 4,225 |
June 09, 2012 4:16 pm
Bump to follow. Mostly for laughs.
|
|
Joined Jun 2012 Posts: 4 |
June 09, 2012 4:18 pm
i have researches this topic also and what i have found is that to a certain extent this is true. when u drastically cut your calorie intake you will lose weight say about 3lb per week but after a few days your body lowers its metabolic rate 'starvation mode', this just means that you will still loose weight but at a slower rate say 2 lbs per week. the weight will still come off. Also recommended to have a non diet day to give our metabolism a boost. I have never seen a truely starving person who is overweight.
|
|
Joined Apr 2011 Posts: 10 |
June 09, 2012 4:21 pm
QUOTE: QUOTE: God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is. <3
I have to ditto this person's sentiment. Your posts do a great job of staying on topic, presenting factual and well thought out support for your arguments without being filled with preconceived value judgements. This is the difference between people who post contribution and those who post spam.
Edited by Takatora On June 09, 2012 4:21 pm
|
|
Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 13,773 |
June 09, 2012 4:22 pm
QUOTE: Bump to follow. Mostly for laughs. *blows rasberry*
|
|
Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 870 |
June 09, 2012 4:29 pm
QUOTE: What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect. Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back. If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis. You don't magically regain weight by eating normally. It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese. If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10. |
|
Joined May 2012 Posts: 2,623 |
June 09, 2012 4:33 pm
QUOTE: QUOTE: What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect. Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back. If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis. You don't magically regain weight by eating normally. It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese. If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10. My thoughts exactly. I know a LOT about yo-yo dieting...I should after all these years. I didnt gain the weight back eating normally....I gained it back by thinking I could go back to eating exactly the way I had been....eating the junk and larger portions. And, yes....I didnt gain it all back in a couple months....took years.
|
|
Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 711 |
June 09, 2012 4:33 pm
QUOTE: I'm a big fan of science and evidence but in this case I don't even care about it. Eating 600-800 calories a day is just a miserable existence. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves? ^^agreed!! 
|
Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help
Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.